Does oral single-ingredient NR lower systolic blood pressure in adults with elevated blood pressure?
research showsVerified current evidence does not establish SBP lowering. Small favorable signals require separation from whole-cohort multiplicity-adjusted findings, add-on effects over common exercise, post hoc subgroups and abstract within-arm tests. This is not proof of exactly zero effect, equivalence or exclusion of benefit.
ads claimNo exhaustive advertisement review was performed. Increased NAD or a supplement brand cannot establish BP-treatment efficacy or equivalence of all NR salts.
Four separate assessment dimensions
| Effect direction and size | Verified current evidence does not establish SBP lowering. Small favorable signals require separation from whole-cohort multiplicity-adjusted findings, add-on effects over common exercise, post hoc subgroups and abstract within-arm tests. This is not proof of exactly zero effect, equivalence or exclusion of benefit. |
|---|---|
| Evidence certainty | Cutoff2026-09-17. Direct, indirect, abstract and protocol evidence are separated. Representative two-sided between-arm CIs, medication changes, nutrition/salt detail and some registration/supplement fields remain unverified. |
| Applicability | Adults with elevated BP; actual older/treated/untreated/indirect groups separated |
| Safety | Mild gastrointestinal symptoms were reported in short studies. One serious event in the 2025 NR-alone arm was judged unrelated by the physician. One 2026 NR adverse-event withdrawal involved low laboratory eGFR based on serum creatinine, not low creatinine or established causality. Long-term, pregnancy, pediatric, severe hepatic/renal and specific drug-combination safety remain unestablished. This is not a basis for independently stopping/changing BP medication or treating a trial dose as a recommendation. |
The supplied calculator returns D for S/R1/I1/E0/B2/CX. Zero strong axes map to the supplied fixed28-point anchor, without override. E0 codes currently nonsignificant/unconfirmed key contrasts, not exact zero or exclusion of benefit.
Useful facts when choosing a product
- Oral single NR is distinct from nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, NMN, NAD+, NRH and NR plus pterostilbene.
- Chloride was confirmed in2018; study-specific salts and free-active doses in other key reports were not certified or converted from brand identity alone.
- Reported1000 mg/day and6 weeks to3 months are study regimens, not personal dosing instructions.
Chamgap Semantic Classification Code
Permanent code issued
S.nicotinamide-riboside.oral.elevated-blood-pressure-adults-systolic-bp.reduce.placebo-or-matched-careSupplements and nutraceuticals > Nicotinamide riboside > Oral > Adults with elevated blood pressure; systolic BP > Reduction claim > Placebo or study-specific matched care
Technical binding of unchanged ChatGPT D/28, Caution and declared study-specific boundaries. The code identifies the intervention and claim; it never contains the evidence grade, score, or safety result.
Exact Claim Classification
These independent facets prevent evidence from different forms, routes, populations, effects, and comparators from being mixed.
| Intervention class | S · Supplement or nutraceutical |
|---|---|
| Canonical ingredient or intervention | Nicotinamide riboside (NR) |
| Source or part used | Single chemical compound; botanical source/part not applicable |
| Formulation or processing | Oral single ingredient; confirmed chloride versus unverified study salt separated |
| Route | Oral |
| Dose | Reported1000 mg/day by trial; free-active amount unverified |
| Duration | 6 weeks,12 weeks or3 months, separately |
| Population | Adults with elevated BP; actual older/treated/untreated/indirect groups separated |
| Effect or condition | Lower systolic blood pressure |
| Primary endpoint | SBP mmHg; resting/day/night/24-hour/home distinct; page endpoint is not automatically registered primary |
| Comparator | Placebo; common-exercise contrast separated from other contrasts |
| Duplicate-detection key | S|nicotinamide-riboside|single-ingredient-oral|adults-with-elevated-bp|systolic-blood-pressure|placebo-with-common-care-separated |
What the research actually shows
# TASK-1022 / R01-062 - Oral single-ingredient NR and systolic blood pressure
Evidence/search cutoff: **2026-09-17 (Asia/Seoul)**. Efficacy **D / 28**, safety **Caution**, classification **S / heart**. Result: `completed_with_uncertainty`; publication: `needs_id_assignment`. The new site ID, slug, URL and first publication date remain unassigned.
## 1. Thirty-second answer
**Current verified evidence does not establish that oral single-ingredient nicotinamide riboside (NR) lowers systolic blood pressure in adults with elevated BP.** Small favorable signals must be distinguished from multiplicity-adjusted nonsignificant whole-cohort findings, an unconfirmed additional effect over common exercise, post hoc subgroups and conference-abstract within-arm P values. This is not proof of exactly zero effect, equivalence or exclusion of clinically worthwhile benefit. Trial doses are not personal dosing recommendations, and this evidence is not a basis to independently stop or change prescribed BP treatment. [S01](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7) [S03](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-025-01815-2) [S06 access record](sources.json)
## 2. Fixed question and actual applicability
The question is **supplement S > single NR > study-specific salt/active amount > oral > adults with elevated BP, separating treated and untreated groups > SBP lowering > method-specific mmHg > actual placebo/common-care comparator**. Planned eligibility is not a verified study fact. Actual evidence predominantly concerns midlife/older adults: a post hoc high-BP subgroup within healthy adults aged55-79, sedentary hypertensive adults aged55 or above, an abstract population aged50 or above with elevated casual SBP, and adults aged65 or above with amnestic MCI not selected for hypertension. Findings are not generalized to young adults, resistant hypertension or diagnosed nutrient-deficiency treatment. [Structured extraction](study_extraction.json)
NR was not pooled with nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, NMN, NAD+, NRH, NR plus pterostilbene or injected NR. **NR chloride** was verified in2018; the NIAGEN brand alone was not used as study-specific confirmation of the salt in other reports. Reported1000 mg/day was not silently converted into a free-NR-equivalent active dose. NAD biomarkers, arterial stiffness, endothelial function, muscle mass, strength, gait and endurance are not SBP results. BP itself is a surrogate, not a measured cardiovascular-event benefit. [S01](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7) [Classification audit](classification_audit.json)
## 3. Expert evidence table
Negative values favor lower SBP when the estimand is NR minus its stated control. **Within-arm change is not the same as a between-arm treatment effect.** Results below were not pooled across settings or cohorts.
| Study and directness | Actual population and denominator | Intervention, comparator and time | SBP findings | Interpretation boundary | |---|---|---|---|---| | Martens2018 [S01/S02] | Healthy55-79 years;30 randomized,24 completed. Normal11/high-BP13 subgrouping was post hoc | Oral NR chloride500 mg twice daily,6 weeks per crossover condition, matched placebo | Whole-cohort paired mean NR minus placebo **-3.9 mmHg**; one-sided95% CI **(-infinity,-0.058)**; unadjusted one-sided P=**0.048**, adjusted alpha=**0.006**. High-BP13: **-9 mmHg**, no CI/P | Nonsignificant after stated multiplicity correction. Authors explicitly prohibit inferential interpretation of the post hoc subgroup.24 pairs are not48 independent people | | Lin2025 [S03/S04], closest daytime add-on comparison | Sedentary hypertensive adults>=55. NR+exercise/PL+exercise/NR alone randomized **17/18/19**.50 intervention completers; full assessments **15/16/18=49** | Reported NR1000 mg/day,6 weeks; primary contrast NR+exercise versus placebo+the same exercise | Daytime ambulatory within-arm changes, mean+/-SD: **+5.19+/-13.2 / -2.71+/-10.5 / -0.48+/-8.49 mmHg**. Authors report no significant changes among groups; exact between-arm CI/P unverified | Additional NR benefit not established. **+7.90 mmHg** is a descriptive subtraction of changes, not an author-reported adjusted contrast/CI. No placebo-alone group | | Lin2025 post hoc non-medication subset [S03] | No antihypertensive use before/during intervention: **18=6/4/8** | Same6 weeks; daytime and nighttime separate | NR+exercise versus PL+exercise changes: daytime **-3.16+/-11.7 versus -11.6+/-5.08**; nighttime **-9.6+/-9.22 versus -1.17+/-28.2 mmHg**, mean+/-SD | Favorable nighttime descriptive difference **-8.43** comes from PCA-guided post hoc analysis. No verified between-arm CI/P. Not the daytime primary or24-hour mean effect | | Craighead2025 conference abstract [S06], positive counterevidence | >=50 years, casual SBP>=120.52 reported participants; **26/26**. Full randomized/completer flow unresolved | NR1000 mg/day versus placebo,3 months | NR **130+/-2 to126+/-2 mmHg**, within-arm P=**0.016**; placebo **134+/-2 to135+/-3**, within-arm P=**0.699**. Dispersion type unspecified | No between-arm test/CI. Rounded difference of changes **-5 mmHg** is descriptive only. Not upgraded to a complete confirmatory trial paper | | Martens2026 aMCI [S07], indirect population/secondary outcome | >=65, no hypertension selection.52 randomized; started NR24/PL25; completed NR22/PL20. Table5 headers22/20 do not verify SBP-specific analytic N | Oral NR1000 mg/day versus placebo,12 weeks | Estimated means+/-SE: NR **132+/-3 to127+/-3**, PL **124+/-3 to123+/-2 mmHg**. Treatment-by-time P=**0.187**; model-derived d=**0.427** | Nonsignificant secondary result. Rounded difference of changes -4 is not the exact fitted coefficient/CI. NR baseline was8 mmHg higher; population is not general hypertension |
Locations: S01 cardiovascular Results/Figure3; S02 Supplementary Table6; S03 Methods/Table1/Results/Discussion; S06 original abstract Methods/Results; S07 Table5/statistics. URLs and access limitations are recorded in [sources.json](sources.json). Fields and calculations are in [study_extraction.json](study_extraction.json) and [calculations.json](calculations.json).
### Measurement, baseline BP, medications and common conditions
**2018:** Seated rest for at least10 minutes preceded semiautomated DynamapXL readings in the nondominant arm. Three measurements within5 mmHg,2 minutes apart, were averaged; baseline used two testing days. Measurements at each6-week endpoint were resting laboratory/office-like BP, not home BP or ABPM. Supplementary Table6 gives placebo median123(range87-157) and NR115(85-143) mmHg. The difference of medians,-8, was not substituted for the paired mean difference,-3.9. Antihypertensive distribution and actual changes in the high-BP subgroup were not adequately verified. The paper's pre-test medication restrictions are study procedures, not individual treatment advice. [S01](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7) [S02](https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-03421-7/MediaObjects/41467_2018_3421_MOESM1_ESM.pdf)
**Lin2025:** Eligibility was daytime ambulatory SBP **>=130 and<160**. In NR+exercise/PL+exercise/NR-alone order, mean+/-SD ages were **67.5+/-7.0/68.3+/-7.7/66.3+/-7.2 years**; baseline daytime SBP **139.6+/-12.4/141.0+/-11.6/138.9+/-9.9 mmHg**; and number of antihypertensives **1.1+/-1.0/1.4+/-1.2/1.2+/-1.2**. Outside the18 nonusers, participants used medications spanning several drug classes. Actual medication changes throughout the treated cohort were not verified. Consent plans to collect changes do not demonstrate that no changes occurred. Both exercise arms received supervised30-minute walking three times weekly, warm-up/cool-down and progressive intensity. Thus the isolated add-on contrast is NR+exercise versus placebo+exercise; NR alone versus placebo+exercise does not isolate NR. [S03](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-025-01815-2) [S04](https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/43/NCT04112043/ICF_001.pdf)
The paper describes Oscar2 ABPM **every30 minutes from07:00-23:00 and every60 minutes from23:00-07:00**. The official consent(version2023-02-09, approved2023-03-02) instead specifies **every20 minutes07:00-22:00 and every60 minutes22:00-07:00**. Both statements are retained; actual device programming or protocol amendments were not resolved. Baseline,3-week safety and6-week measurements are distinct; efficacy values above concern6 weeks. A daytime mean from a24-hour recording is not a24-hour overall mean. [S03](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-025-01815-2) [S04](https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/43/NCT04112043/ICF_001.pdf)
**2025 abstract:** Ages were reported as NR65+/-7 and placebo68+/-7, with women/men18/8 and13/13. The dispersion type, device/repeat-reading method, medication distribution/changes and full participant flow were unavailable. Methods from a similar2022 protocol were not copied as actual abstract-trial procedures. **2026 aMCI:** SunTech AdView2 was used after at least10 minutes seated rest, averaging three nondominant-arm readings within5 mmHg,2 minutes apart. Twelve-week resting SBP is not ABPM. Table5 contains estimated means and SE. Supplemental Methods TableM1 was inaccessible, so22/20 headers were not asserted to be the exact SBP analysis denominators. [S06 access record](sources.json) [S07](https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.71605)
## 4. Registered hierarchy, design and counterevidence
The2018 paper centered on safety/NAD, with BP an exploratory physiological endpoint. Highlighting raw one-sided P=0.048 alone would discard the authors' multiplicity threshold0.006. Lin2025 explicitly names **daytime SBP change and NR+exercise versus PL+exercise** as the main comparison. Missing primary/secondary outcome values were mean-imputed, while model-specific denominators remain unverified. The nonuser nighttime analysis cannot replace that primary result. In2026, cognition was primary, SBP secondary; analyses were completer mixed models without multiplicity correction. This task does not regrade cognition. [S01](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7) [S03](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-025-01815-2) [S07](https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.71605)
NCT02921659, NCT04112043 and NCT03482167 were matched to their papers; NCT03821623 to the protocol. Official registry pages/history were access-limited, so **complete agreement with the original registered primary hierarchy and earliest analysis plan was not verified**. The official NCT04112043 consent was directly read, but it is not a results register or statistical analysis plan. [Source/registry access log](sources.json)
Freeberg2022 is a protocol for adults>=50 with SBP120-159, NR500 mg twice daily for3 months versus placebo, with casual SBP primary. Planned118 randomized/94 completers are not achieved sample sizes. Power inputs of-12.8 versus-4.2 mmHg are earlier data, not newly observed trial effects. Medication stability with physician-required changes allowed, and diet/activity monitoring, are planned procedures rather than actual results. Similar authors, regimen and support suggest linkage to Craighead2025, but the abstract lacks an NCT. **Linkage was neither asserted as proven nor counted as two independent result trials.** [S05](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.881703/full) [S06 record](sources.json)
The positive2025 abstract was retained. A within-arm P=0.016 in one group and P=0.699 in the other does not test whether the two changes differ. Its publisher DOI was verified but fetching the page failed, so the original abstract reproduced on a bibliographic mirror was read. It is an American Physiology Summit2025 abstract and states that the Physiology editorial board was not involved in peer review. It was not upgraded to a complete peer-reviewed confirmatory clinical report. [Original abstract mirror](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393288502_Nicotinamide_Riboside_Lowers_Systolic_Blood_Pressure_and_Improves_Vascular_Endothelial_Function_in_MidlifeOlder_Adults_with_Above-Normal_Systolic_Blood_Pressure)
Public support and ChromaDex/Niagen product provision coexist. NIH R21AG064282 for Lin and R01AG061514/K01HL153326/F31HL154782 plus product provision for the abstract were identified. Product provision in2026 was verified, but complete financial support was not fully resolved. Neither a no-conflict declaration nor unverified funding was treated as financially independent replication. [S03](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-025-01815-2) [S06/S07 record](sources.json)
## 5. Nutrition and safety
In2018, a registered dietician analyzed3-day records at baseline and the final week of each phase for caloric stability; this does not quantify B3/NR or diagnose deficiency. Diagnostic NR/B3 deficiency, total dietary B3/NR intake and quantified co-vitamin use were inadequately reported across the key evidence. Lin excluded habitual NAD-elevating B3 supplement use, which is not proof of nutritional sufficiency or standardized diet. Low NAD was not diagnosed as NR deficiency. Specific laboratory interference was not established in these sources, and nonreporting was not treated as a guarantee of no interference. [NUT extraction fields](study_extraction.json)
Safety **Caution** is separate from efficacy. In2018,7 of30 randomized participants reported14 treatment-emergent events; no serious event was reported. Adverse-event withdrawals were0 during NR and2 during placebo. Incompletely characterized crossover exposure denominators were not turned into a fabricated NR event rate. Lin2025 reported mild events in9/12/7 participants across randomized groups17/18/19, combining related and unrelated events; exact safety-exposure denominators were not separately verified. One serious event in NR alone was judged unrelated by the study physician; no intervention-related adverse-event withdrawal occurred. Post-exercise low BP, dizziness, breathlessness and fatigue were not all causally attributed to NR itself. [S01](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7) [S03](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-025-01815-2)
In2026,24 NR/25 placebo participants began treatment. No serious events were reported, but adverse-event withdrawals were1/3. The NR withdrawal was **a low laboratory eGFR based on serum creatinine**, not low serum creatinine or proven NR nephrotoxicity. An abstract reporting no serious events does not exclude rare harms. These small6-week to3-month studies do not adequately establish long-term safety, pregnancy/pediatric use, severe hepatic/renal disease safety or specific antihypertensive combinations. **The studied1000 mg/day is not a personal recommended dose.** [S07](https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.71605) [Correction audit](correction_log.json)
## 6. Grade, axes and supplied anchor
**S / R1 / I1 / E0 / B2 / CX > calculated D > final D > zero strong axes > fixed supplied anchor28.** No override. BP is explicitly surrogate S. Population, measurement and exercise contrasts do not pass the replication-comparability gate, so case31's R1 applies; differing P labels do not establish R0, and small nonsignificant trials do not establish RX. Public support plus product provision/unresolved funding warrants I1.
E0 is **the supplied rule's coding** for unconfirmed additional benefit in the main comparison and multiplicity-adjusted nonsignificance. It does not mean exactly zero effect, equivalence or exclusion of meaningful benefit. Observed numerical nonsignificant findings were not changed to EX merely because CI/MCID details were missing, nor were post hoc/within-arm positives promoted to E+. No validated applicable benefit-exclusion threshold or representative two-sided between-arm CI was verified, hence CX. B2 reflects small samples(<200),6-week evidence for chronic BP and limitations of the other small abstract/completer analyses. Funding and CI width were not counted again as bias defects. `no_human_study=false`; F's repeated-refutation/precision conditions are unmet.28 is a Chamgap rule-based score, not a treatment-success probability, official GRADE score or journal certification. [Executed calculations and clauses](calculations.json) [Supplied rubric](input_snapshot/input_28.md) [Unmodified calculator](input_snapshot/input_27.py)
## 7. Search scope, uncertainty, revision conditions and completion
On2026-09-17, the existing NR source map was reused and focused Korean/English NR/SBP/hypertension, NCT,2025-2026 results and exact-DOI correction/retraction searches were executed. Primary reports, an official consent, a protocol and an original conference abstract were examined. No exhaustive subscription-database search, author contact, individual-participant-data analysis or regulatory approval review was performed. No verified correction/retraction changing the key SBP evidence was identified within this scope; absence is not guaranteed. [Actual28 queries and access failures](search_log.json)
Remaining limitations include exact between-arm CIs and analysis denominators, medication changes, nutrition/salt/active amount, registry histories, Lin's measurement-schedule conflict and the abstract's incomplete reporting. **A full follow-up paper/results register, adequately reported placebo-controlled trials with comparable measurement, or retrieved supplements/amendments/corrections** are conditions for revising this baseline assessment. Current clinical content is complete with these uncertainties; no clinical revalidation or new-grade decision task is delegated to the technical recipient. [Information status and triggers](uncertainties.json)
The3137-entry index and eight originals were checked. Existing314/929/1068/3093/3094/3135/3136/3137 were reused for boundaries/source mapping, not regraded or rewritten. Supplied later publication completion for3135/3136/3137 supersedes historical unassigned handoff status. This task's postpublication `corrections` is empty; presubmission auditing is separate. **Document quality A is a same-author scope/source/numeric/bilingual/format check, not independent external peer review, journal certification or a guarantee of no error.** [Duplicate/history audit](duplicate_audit.json) [Verification](verification_report.md)
Why this is classified as D (28)
The supplied calculator returns D for S/R1/I1/E0/B2/CX. Zero strong axes map to the supplied fixed28-point anchor, without override. E0 codes currently nonsignificant/unconfirmed key contrasts, not exact zero or exclusion of benefit.
Counterpoint. Small studies and an abstract leave favorable possibilities, but post hoc analyses, within-arm tests and indirect populations do not establish confirmatory randomized success.
Rejudgment record. Current between-arm BP benefit unconfirmed; positive signals and uncertainty retained — Supplied rubric, calculator and fixed anchor; no invented MCID, CI or grading rule
| Endpoint | S | Surrogate marker - laboratory or imaging measures Case application: BP is explicitly a surrogate S in the supplied rubric, not a measured cardiovascular event benefit. |
| Replication | R1 | Single confirmatory trial Case application: Population, timing and exercise contrasts fail the comparability gate. Apply R1 under case31, not R0 from differing P labels and not RX from small nonsignificant trials. |
| Independence | I1 | Mixed funding sources Case application: Public funding plus commercial product support is mixed I1; unverified funding does not establish independence. |
| Effect size | E0 | Null Case application: The closest daytime add-on comparison did not establish benefit and the 2018 whole-cohort result failed its multiplicity threshold. Abstract within-arm positives and post hoc nighttime signals are not confirmatory between-arm success. E0 codes this unconfirmed/nonsignificant evidence, not exact zero, equivalence or exclusion of benefit; missing CI/MCID alone does not convert observed null-inference results into EX. |
| Precision | CX | No pooled confidence interval could be confirmed Case application: No verified two-sided between-arm CI represents this mixed question. The 2018 interval is unadjusted and one-sided; other key intervals are unavailable. CX, without inventing a benefit-exclusion threshold. |
Stored derived and displayed grades match; this is not a current recalculation or validity check (D).
Review performed and remaining limitations
Cutoff2026-09-17. Direct, indirect, abstract and protocol evidence are separated. Representative two-sided between-arm CIs, medication changes, nutrition/salt detail and some registration/supplement fields remain unverified.
Preliminary RoB 2-informed review — not a complete formal assessment
| Randomization | Used original randomization/blinding descriptions; full original registry agreement unverified. |
|---|---|
| Deviations from assigned interventions | Separated common exercise and unverified actual drug changes; preserved consent/paper ABPM-schedule conflict. |
| Missing outcome data | Separated randomized54/intervention50/fullassessment49 and mean imputation for Lin. Recorded completer analysis and unavailable SBP-specific N in2026. |
| Outcome measurement | Separated 2018/2026 resting from2025 daytime/post hoc nighttime ambulatory BP. |
| Selection of the reported result | Preserved2018 multiplicity correction, Lin post hoc selection, abstract within-arm tests and2026 uncorrected comparisons. |
Reasons for the certainty judgment — not formal GRADE
| Risk of bias | Small/short trials and completer, imputation and post hoc limitations |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency | Different populations, measurement and exercise contrasts; not automatically direct R0 conflict |
| Indirectness | Healthy/aMCI and older cohorts not generalized to all hypertension |
| Imprecision | Representative two-sided between-arm CI unverified; benefit not excluded |
| Publication bias | Abstract-stage reporting and access limits; absence of publication bias not established |
Search scope and limitations. search_log.json
Evidence Table
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martens2018 | Randomized crossover; healthy adults and post hoc high-BP subset | 30 randomized/24 completed; post hoc13 | Public/product support or incomplete financial verification; see source record | Resting SBP;6 weeks | Overall -3.9 mmHg, one-sided95% CI(-infinity,-0.058), rawP0.048/adjustedalpha0.006; post hoc13:-9 without inference | Prioritize adjusted inference and subgroup boundary |
| Lin2025 | Randomized3 arms; common-exercise contrast | 54 randomized/50 intervention completers/49 full assessments | Public/product support or incomplete financial verification; see source record | Daytime ambulatory SBP; post hoc nighttime separate | NR+exercise +5.19+/-13.2 versus PL+exercise -2.71+/-10.5 mmHg, mean+/-SD; exact CI/P unverified, author-reported nonsignificance | Closest add-on contrast |
| Craighead2025 | Original conference abstract; randomized double blind | Reported52,26/26; complete flow unverified | Public/product support or incomplete financial verification; see source record | Casual SBP;3 months | NR130+/-2 to126+/-2(P0.016), PL134+/-2 to135+/-3(P0.699), within-arm tests; dispersion/betweenCI unknown | Positive counterevidence with abstract limits |
| Martens2026 | aMCI randomized trial; secondary SBP | 52 randomized/49 started/42 completed; exact SBP N unverified | Public/product support or incomplete financial verification; see source record | Resting SBP;12 weeks | NR132+/-3 to127+/-3, PL124+/-3 to123+/-2 mmHg; estimatedmean+/-SE, treatment-by-timeP0.187 | Indirect population; nonsignificant secondary |
Receipt — 7 References
Evidence access cutoff: 2026-09-17. Each citation states its actual access level (full-text transcription, abstract, index, or other) and remaining limitations. Bibliographic checking does not certify the study results or treatment efficacy.
Technical integration by: Codex · Evidence date: 2026-09-17 · Corrections: none
Cite this verdict
[Chamgap] Does oral single-ingredient NR lower systolic blood pressure in adults with elevated blood pressure? — Evidence Grade D·28. 7 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/heart/oral-nicotinamide-riboside-elevated-blood-pressure-systolic-bp/ · CC BY 4.0CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.
What this document does and does not do
Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.